A federal appeals court today dismissed a lawsuit by a private agency that places au pairs in Massachusetts - and two families that have used its services - against the state Attorney General's office, which had determined their clients should have to pay foreign au pairs at least the state minimum wage of $12 an hour, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
It is hardly evident that a federal foreign affairs interest in creating a "friendly" and "cooperative" spirit with other nations is advanced by a program of cultural exchange that, by design, would authorize foreign nationals to be paid less than Americans performing similar work.
Culture Care Au Pair of Cambridge and the two families had were challenging AG Maura Healey's effort to get higher wages and even overtime for foreign au pairs, comparable to what domestic servants have to be paid under state employment laws - and which would require sleep and even meal time to be included as hours in many cases. They charged the effort was unconstitutional because it sought to override regulations for a State Department program that refers to the federal minimum wage as part of its conditions for allowing foreign college students to come here and spend a year as an exchange students while living in American couples' homes and caring for their children.
That, they argued, violated the "Supremacy" clause of the Constitution, under which federal laws and regulations normally override any state regulations.
Hogwash, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled today, if in more detailed and legally specific terms, in an 81-page decision.
The court started with a 1976 Supreme Court case involving the hiring of illegal aliens in California, in which the justices unanimously ruled that, among other things, while the federal government does indeed have "supremacy" when it comes to fundamental issues of immigration, regulation of worker standards and pay was "a quintessentially local area of regulation."
The court rejected the argument by the agency and families that another court case, involving workers with jobs the existence of which are "inherently federal in character" trumps that, because the au pairs wouldn't be here without the State Department program.
Nope, the court said, because the Massachusetts employment laws in question:
Are generally applicable to all domestic workers. Thus, they are not predicated on the existence of the federal au pair exchange program regulations.
Also, the court continued, the detailed State Department regulations refer solely to the host agencies that bring au pairs into the country, and are completely silent on the employer/employee relationship between host families and the au pairs - which is the relationship government by state minimum-wage and hours laws.
For, [the California case] makes clear, the mere fact that a state law implicates the interests of persons who are the subject of federal regulation, even with respect to immigration, does not alone provide a basis for inferring that the federal regulatory scheme was intended to preempt a field that encompasses such a state law, at least when it concerns a matter of such quintessentially local concern as employment.
The court next rejected an argument that by setting federal minimum standards for pay and hours, the federal government was attempting to set uniform national standards for au pairs. That may be true, but the regulations nowhere state that au pairs can't be paid more than the federal minimum - or be paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week, even in a state like Massachusetts, which in many cases would count hours spent sleeping in a host's home towards those hours.
Only, it isn't true, the court continued: A preface to the State Department au-pair regulations that lists "objectives" of the program "does not refer to a federal governmental interest in setting a uniform national standard for either au pair participant wages or for host family recordkeeping requirements."
From all one can tell from the text of these provisions, in other words, the Au Pair Program operates parallel to, rather than in place of, state employment laws that concern wages and hours and that protect domestic workers generally, at least with respect to the obligations that such state law wage and hour measures impose on host families to do more than what the FLSA itself requires. Thus, the text of au pair exchange program regulations themselves does not supply the affirmative evidence that the state measures at issue will frustrate the federal scheme's objectives that the plaintiffs need to identify if they are to meet their burden to show obstacle preemption.
The plaintiffs - joined in an amicus brief by the Department of State - also warned that if they lost, almost nobody in Massachusetts could afford a foreign au pair, which would damage the international amity the program is supposed to promote. The court, though, said the plaintiffs supplied no proof of this and asked, if this were so, how anybody in Massachusetts could afford a live-in domestic nanny or maid, since they are subject to the state minimum-age and hours laws as well.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling | 150.62 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
The way the program is set up
By Cate
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 11:59pm
The way the program is set up is simply not sustainable if families are forced to pay minimum wage, mainly because of all additional costs listed in the post above. The program is set up so that the “stIpend” is a fully discretionary income for the Au Pair. They have no costs. One can argue, they are “required” to live with the family, but where else would they live? I do not see them as abused workers here. I have been hosting for three years now and my Au Pairs definitely do not live like someone below poverty line. Quite the contrary. They party in Manhattan every weekend and shop like there is no tomorrow. They travel and probably saw more of the US then I ever did. So I do not feel bad for them. I think they have a blast. Too bad it may end.
how they live
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 1:09pm
and how you perceive it is not at issue.
at issue is the law. you are required to pay them the state minimum wage, irrespective of whatever other "benefits" you believe them to have.
you wanted an au pair, you deal with what it means to be an employer and follow the law. it's not hard.
They are not employees
By Lorna Smith
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 11:28am
Au Pairs are not employees. They do not have work authorization in the US.
Also, it is not a live-in help 24-hours a day. The program is up to 45h a week. Barely covers the hours for someone working out of the home.
As to the choice where to live - it is federally mandated. So not a choice of the employer, really. I would not mind if my Au Pair went to live somewhere else - I could rent my basement apartment where she lives for $1500/month. I would gladly pay her minimum wage then. But I would also not give her my car on her off hours, or computer, or cable, or Netflix or all the other things she gets when she lives with us.
This new ruling is a mess. It is not compatible with the Au Pair program and will likely end it in MA.
And people who think that Au Pairs should meet some of these girls and see how they fare - ours parties in Manhattan every weekend (oh, I forgot the free transportation to the city paid for us) and travels the US on extra vacation we give her. Check out our nice family photos from her birthday in Japanese steakhouse. How many minimum-wage nannies live like this?
careful
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 1:06pm
just because they don't have work authorization doesn't mean they're not doing work.
you expect them to care for your children and the whole point of the "exchange" is that they provide childcare for up to 45 hours a week (just a bit over a full time job, in case you forgot). therefore, it's work and you are the employer.
it doesn't really matter what's federally mandated and what's not and what you would accept in hypothetical circumstances - the point is, by Massachusetts law that au pair has no choice but to stay in your home so you cannot argue that room and board go towards her wage.
you made the choice to hire an au pair. now you deal with what that means.
you want to rent out that extra room? cool, hire a live-out childcare professional and rent the room.
it doesn't make much sense to enter into a work contract that you know ahead of time requires her to occupy that room and then bitch about how you're under so much hardship because you can't AirBnB anymore. you knew what you were getting into. suck it up.
I don't really understand the sense of entitlement here.
You are misunderstanding
By Lorna Smith
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 3:32pm
You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I am not saying that they are not doing work. But it is not a classic employee-employer relationship. It is different. My boss does not cook me chicken soup when I am sick, does yours?
And this ruling and discussion is about getting them to minimum wage, the "living wage." They are already provided a living. They do not need a living wage. All they get is "extra" and they can spend it on having fun and travelling and not on bills and food. They already live a middle class (or upper middle class in my area) lifestyle. Yes, they have to work. Newsflash: everybody does (except from a select group of very wealthy). I am glad that they party in Manhattan. I love that my Au Pair is having a blast. But if you required me to triple her stipend (by the way, I already pay more than the minimum and bonuses), I would have to look for alternatives. So my Au Pair would have to go home. Or to somebody that can afford it. It would be a lose-lose. Not a win for anyone.
Luckily I am not in Massachusetts.
what a coincidence
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 1:20pm
two "different" people who happen to have au pairs that "party in Manhattan every weekend"
sure, dude!
also, even if one of these is factual, uh, you all are making the choice to send them to Manhattan to party and travel with extra vacation time, so maybe don't act like you're making a huge sacrifice or that someone is forcing you to do it.
Have you ever had an Au Pair?
By jcl
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:47pm
Have you ever had an Au Pair?
Room and board
By Host mom
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 11:54pm
I love the au pair program, and the people it has put in our lives over the years. I describe it more as an exchange student who cares for my children (she takes them to school and picks them up and plays with them in the afternoon or shuttles them around to their activities). I ask that she does their laundry each week and keep their bedrooms relatively tidy.
When we matched, she asked what her bedroom and bathroom would look like, and I gave her a tour. If they were unacceptable, she would have said no and continued to look for another family. They have just as much a choice in matching as we do, and plenty to choose from.
She has Friday at 5 until 8 am Monday off. She was gone on a paid holiday that was not taken out of her vacation time from tues morning - until Monday morning of thanksgiving week. She was given a round trip flight and a free apt in nyc over Christmas while my family is out of town. Again, not taking vacation time. So now you have an 18-26 year old who does an amazing job of watching my kids, who has also had more paid days off in 3 months than many of us have ten years into our jobs.
She has a car with gas and insurance and an iPhone X that is paid monthly. She has friends she sees regularly and goes to class one night a week. She has tons of food in the fridge. Oh, and she makes $200/week to spend on whatever she wants. She can save it and go on a huge trip around the country. She can blow it on clothes at the mall. It’s her business, but she certainly isn’t worrying about any bills that need to be paid, like gas and electric, or her crazy commute to the office.
If we had to, we could make the extra cash work. I’d pull my younger two out of preschool, so instead of having 9-2 free every day, we’d get every penny out of her 45 hour work week. That would cover the extra cost. She would not have gone away for thanksgiving. I was excited for her to see Savannah, but at $500/week couldn’t have afforded to pay that for no work. Those uggs and necklace I got her for Christmas would sadly be traded for a $50 gift card to target.
Perks are perks. I’m sure some families can still afford it, but there are costs to having someone live in that aren’t tied to finances. If I’m paying the same as a nanny, I’d probably do that. Having privacy, having the ability to schedule more than 45 hours each week, not worrying about inexperienced drivers using your vehicles, not paying the extra cell phone bill, etc... I love our au pair, but I’m so glad I don’t live in mass right now.
bloohoohoo the struggle is
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 9:15am
bloohoohoo the struggle is real :,( my heart is breaking for you, your au pair, your nanny, and your massive house with rentable inlaw apartment. a real dickensian tragedy, your family.
this is like the people who have two incomes of 200k+ thinking they're middle class in media polls. jesus christ, get some perspective.
Not just Euros
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 8:05am
Many of the au pairs come from Central and South America. My bet is that it's the majority for the Boston region.
Au Pair Program is more than you think
By Tammy
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 12:09am
I believe this is a very sensitive issue and do not want anyone to blindly think that Au Pair program is poor only from domestic employee issue.
As a former au pair for 2 years and host mom who welcomed 6 au pairs, I would like to share my perspective on this from both sides:
As an au pair, thought it is true that there are families that violate the integrity of the program.
Without this program, many au pair and I would never be able to afford to come to the US, improve my English, travel and see the world. It allows me to learn the true values of American people first hand. Unlike the media outside the US stereotypes, American people have a big heart, are caring and fair. The experience allows me to be a better mom and provide perspective how I will raise my children in the future.
The au pair program allows me who not in a million year to be able to afford to live in the US.
What we got paid is not much but including room and board, food, 2 week vacation, educations, flights to visit many states, cellphone, car, birthday presents, Christmas presents and a life long friendship. My au pair friends and I would never want to change anything. In addition, The experience allows me to be a better mom and provide perspective how I will raise my children in the future.
As a host mom, Au pair program provide flexibility, affordable and provide the benefits that most Childcare program offers:
Flexibility: as I started a family and have 2 children of my own, it is not easy to find childcare for early morning hours and afternoon hours. it would cost $25 -$30 per hours to get the kids really in the morning for bus pickup while parents have to be at work by 8am.
Affordable: of course we went through that. Please keep in mind that most au pairs do not have extensive childcare experience. We mostly have to train them from scratch. Most of these young adults are here for gap year, to explore life options, Improve their English and traveling. They are here just one to two year, they do not want a retirement plan, unemployment, social security benefits that they are not planning to use. If we categorize the au pairs as a domestic worker, it would cost more that parent wages. MA parents will end up quitting our job and stay home with the kids. There will be no au pair program because most families will not be able to afford it. Please do not think that you have to be rich to host an pair. We are just a middle class family. Au Pair program just fits with what we needs.
I feel it would be a lose-lose solution for everyone
Other aspects: special skills as foreign languages, sports talent, music talents are a plus. For me, each person bring with them different cultures and the kids learn to be respectful and embrace the differences. Each year these young au pairs bring back with them American spirits. If you are curious, please ask any au pairs you know how much they love and thankful for the program.
Let’s find ways to make it work.
Au Pair Program is more than you think
By Tammy
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 12:11am
I believe this is a very sensitive issue and do not want anyone to blindly think that Au Pair program is poor only from domestic employee issue.
As a former au pair for 2 years and host mom who welcomed 6 au pairs, I would like to share my perspective on this from both sides:
As an au pair, thought it is true that there are families that violate the integrity of the program.
Without this program, many au pair and I would never be able to afford to come to the US, improve my English, travel and see the world. It allows me to learn the true values of American people first hand. Unlike the media outside the US stereotypes, American people have a big heart, are caring and fair. The experience allows me to be a better mom and provide perspective how I will raise my children in the future.
The au pair program allows me who not in a million year to be able to afford to live in the US.
What we got paid is not much but including room and board, food, 2 week vacation, educations, flights to visit many states, cellphone, car, birthday presents, Christmas presents and a life long friendship. My au pair friends and I would never want to change anything. In addition, The experience allows me to be a better mom and provide perspective how I will raise my children in the future.
As a host mom, Au pair program provide flexibility, affordable and provide the benefits that most Childcare program offers:
Flexibility: as I started a family and have 2 children of my own, it is not easy to find childcare for early morning hours and afternoon hours. it would cost $25 -$30 per hours to get the kids really in the morning for bus pickup while parents have to be at work by 8am.
Affordable: of course we went through that. Please keep in mind that most au pairs do not have extensive childcare experience. We mostly have to train them from scratch. Most of these young adults are here for gap year, to explore life options, Improve their English and traveling. They are here just one to two year, they do not want a retirement plan, unemployment, social security benefits that they are not planning to use. If we categorize the au pairs as a domestic worker, it would cost more that parent wages. MA parents will end up quitting our job and stay home with the kids. There will be no au pair program because most families will not be able to afford it. Please do not think that you have to be rich to host an pair. We are just a middle class family. Au Pair program just fits with what we needs.
I feel it would be a lose-lose solution for everyone
Other aspects: special skills as foreign languages, sports talent, music talents are a plus. For me, each person bring with them different cultures and the kids learn to be respectful and embrace the differences. Each year these young au pairs bring back with them American spirits. If you are curious, please ask any au pairs you know how much they love and thankful for the program.
Let’s find ways to make it work.
to address the "cultural exchange" argument
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 10:22am
that some here are expressing.
I believe there are honest and good people who choose au pairs for legitimate cultural exchange, do not exploit them and generally treat them well.
to that, I would ask: why must a cultural exchange relationship be based on provision of services?
sure, it's one option, but it's not the only one. if you really want a cultural exchange with a longer-term living experience, there are plenty of other ways to get it that don't involve hiring a person as a live-in childcare provider.
that is to say, you can engage in meaningful cultural exchange with other people as just people, not employees (I was an exchange student myself - twice - I know what I'm talking about). also, I mean, maybe meet your neighbors? Especially in Boston, arguing that an au pair is about the only way you can connect with other cultures and languages is pretty weak.
aside from that, you all do know that non-au pair childcare providers across the state have a variety of cultural backgrounds, language skills, etc, right? so even if you require combining your childcare with a foreign exchange, an au pair is not the only way to get it.
it just requires you accepting the fact that yes, sorry, you are an employer and you're going to have to fulfill the obligations that go along with that, even if you believe your intentions to be mostly altruistic.
Without action, the end of the Au Pair Program in Massachusetts
By Longtime Au Pai...
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 9:57pm
Many years in the Au Pair Program as a host family.
Facts:
Free room and in our family, her own bathroom
Free food and food by request
Ability to use any of the facilities in our house at any time
Free car and gas during time off
In our family, nearly every weekend off, and rarely works the full 45 hours/week.
Up to two paid vacations per year with our family
No need for au pair to cover these costs taken on by MA residents making a living wage:
Rent, or home mortgage, interest and property taxes
Cable/Wifi/Mobile Phone
Utilities
Furnishing a home
Car payment, car insurance or gas
Including agency fees, total costs of $30k+/year
We will not hire a live-in nanny with free rent. We tried this first before joining the Au Pair program and received zero applications with the state unemployment rate at 7%.
There is little to no comparability between a nanny and an au pair. This tragic and thoughtless ruling will destroy the Au Pair program in Massachusetts.
Worst of all, no more new big sisters to my young daughter.
You can't hear yourself
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 3:44pm
Free room? free food and food by request? Free paid vacations with family?
This is a contract where you provide room and board. The use of the word stipend was intended to evade minimum wage laws. In the US childcare is expensive. The J-1 Visa prevents the Au Pair from negotiating a competitive wage. Even if you pay the $12 hour minimum wage, you are saving money compared to hiring a nanny. The current pay is at least $17 per hour for live in help and much more for someone that lives out.
Several people have mentioned the free car and free cell phone, but that it isn't in any of the "host family requirements" that I have been able to find. I'm sure it helps attract candidates. But if it isn't required than many Au Pairs don't have those perks.
Special rules for special people does not improve Massachusetts. Domestic help is expensive. Did you realize that only US Au Pairs have to work 45 hours per week? In every other country the max hours are 30 hours per week.
Germany
By Cate
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 6:41pm
Glad you brought it up. In Germany, Au Pairs make 260 euros a month, which is $66 per week and they work up to 30 hours a week. So it is $2.2 per hour.
don't forget 4 weeks vacation
By cinnamngrl*
Sat, 12/07/2019 - 1:04pm
don't forget 4 weeks vacation.
We won't hire a live-in nanny or outside nanny
By Longtime Au Pai...
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 7:01am
...rather than Au Pair, so unfortunately in our case no Mass. resident will benefit from a new job. The au pair program is the only way we can make childcare work for us economically without taking more of our own time as working parents.
We are not an affluent family by any stretch. Major misconception here - the affluent families that I know all have one parent, usually the mother, at home and don't want an au pair.
If there is an au pair lobby somewhere or on this board, I am not part of it. We are a real family dealing with the economics of raising three children in Massachusetts.
If you can't afford to pay
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 12:28pm
If you can't afford to pay minimum wage then, you can't afford domestic help. Massachusetts law must benefit all people, not just a special group.
We offered more than minimum wage
By Longtime Au Pai...
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 2:32pm
...along with free room and board 5 miles from Boston, with the state unemployment rate at 7%, and we received not a single applicant. The rate today is well under 3%.
So no, there are not Massachusetts residents ready and willing to take these jobs. You are under a false impression about the promise of the minimum wage - it doesn't increase earnings for workers in the labor market because very few if any new jobs will be created for residents (and no, I'm not a Republican).
This ruling is illusory and tragic, and effects none of the labor change sought by the ruling except to disincentivize many or all Au Pairs from accepting positions in Massachusetts, and in our case and many others, won't result in any new jobs created by current host families.
So you acknowlege that AuPair's are not fairly compensated.
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 4:43pm
You tried to hire a live in, for more than minimum wage and not a single applicant. Currently, the lowest wage I saw advertised is $17 per hour with "free" room and board. Which one of us is under a false impression about minimum wage, I wonder?
On the facts you presented, you can't afford to hire live in help, but you think it is morally acceptable to import a person that is ineligible to to work in the US and therefore unable to negotiate a competitive wage (which is currently higher). You seem unaware that minimum wage is still significantly less than the wage that legal residents can get for the same work.
Massachusetts does not benefit from creating domestic jobs that pay less than minimum wage.
It is clear that these AuPair agencies need to have some transparency with their customers regarding what those hefty fees pay for. If they collect 10K from each family, and the AuPair pays for all of their travel expenses, Visa applications, etc then what is the agency charging for? Legal expenses for these failed appeals?
Dress it up all you want, it is still a special rule to help special people. Massachusetts doesn't need that.
I agree fully the agencies
By Longtime Au Pai...
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 4:50pm
I agree fully the agencies are paid for too much for their Dept of State sanctioned monopoly status. Both host families and au pairs are taken advantage of by them.
I don't agree at all that any substantial new/incremental MA resident employment or caregiving capacity will be hired or compensated in Massachusetts.
The host families being punished are those well below the level of affluence the DWBoR is intended to remediate and regulate. The very rich and the lucky handful of domestic workers chosen to be hired by those lucky (and few) very rich are the winners.
The rest of the caregiving labor market will not benefit one bit.
I have never suggested more
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 3:11pm
I have never suggested more people will hire legal residents with permission to work in the US. If you cannot afford to compensate a domestic worker in compliance with state law, then you cannot afford it. They still will make less the competitive rate.
Raising kids is hard and expensive. But why would you want to set this example for your kids? How are you rationalizing pay an AuPair less then what a legal resident gets for the same work? If you can afford an AuPair for $200 per week and all of the costs that go with it, you are much better off financially than most families. I am sorry that you don't feel fortunate. Even if none of these au pair jobs are replaced, Massachusetts is still better off.
ugh
By Cate
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 4:44pm
It is easy for me to rationalize paying Au Pair less and people outlined all the costs that come with hiring an Au Pair on this forum already. In addition to all these costs, there is also risk involved (you are inviting a stranger to your house, if it does not work out it is very expensive to deal with, the risk of property damage, etc.). Au Pairs have no experience and often very poor language skills. There is a significant time commitment for the families - Au Pair search, training, meetings, monthly check-ins, trips to DMV, trips to SS office, trips to set up Au Pair accounts, random things that you do for them.
Also, for Au Pairs, it is an opportunity. They get to live in the US, travel and improve their English. They do not have any costs, so the discussion about the "living wage" does not really apply, in my opinion.
This ruling is just a ploy to shut down the program by bitter people who dislike foreigners. If they truly cared for the Au Pairs, they would seek changes in the program that make sense and not ones that shut it down.
Someone is bitter, that is sure
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 9:58pm
I dislike paying foreigners less then others for the same work. I have lost all respect for you selfish ridiculous people.
No need to hate
By hostinwa
Sat, 12/21/2019 - 2:17am
The comments up and down this board seem to reflect the culture wars.
I don't think it fair to characterize au pair host families as selfish ridiculous people.
On a practical point - going into this arrangement people had a certain expectation of costs for the year, and for their part the au pairs know the amount of their pay/stipend. To change that abruptly is of course going to cause an unwelcome disruption, as it would for anybody who has the cost of a provided service increase 3x.
But the general tone of a lot of these comments seems to be - "you're rich, you can afford it. If you can't afford if, get out". If I understand those comments correctly, they believe that au pair hosts are taking advantage of a disadvantaged group, to unfairly pay less than market rate.
I don't think the au pairs would see it that way and, ignoring extreme examples, do not feel taken advantage of. Most of them are not intending to make this into their lifelong career, although some may choose a career involving children. It seems to me that for most au pairs this is a fun year, living in another country where you would not be able to stay so long on a tourist visa, and being able to make friends and enjoy a lifestyle that you would not be able to accomplish while traveling as a tourist.
I think the comparison between au pairs and live-in/live-out nannies is misleading. The relationship between a live-out nanny seems a more professional idea, whereas the au pair is more like a member of the family, and receive more support and help accordingly. The nanny agency I just looked at was describing their nannies as all having at least 3 years professional childcare experience. Depending on age, most au pairs have never lived away from home before, and are looking for more of a tight family integration.
Superficial rationalization
By cinnamngrl
Sun, 12/22/2019 - 3:52pm
Rationalization is the road to entitlement.
I was a live in nanny in Boston. I was paid minimum wage with room and board. Nannies with professional child experience and degree s made more.
It is hard to find much history, but the current stipend was set 10 years ago. Even inexperienced live in help make more than $12.75. The program prevents the AuPair from negotiating a competitive wage. They will still make less as an AuPair than a legal resident would make for the same work.
These conditions are artificial. I don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of affordable domestic help to raise their kids. But as reality and fairness catch up you need to stop feeling sorry for yourselves. It is not real to pretend that AuPair s agree that they don’t deserve $12.75 hour.
Again, it was a loop hole in employment law, and it was a matter of when not if it would close. You made a choice and you are fortunate enough to make other choices.
this is hilarious
By anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 3:57pm
look around your neighborhood a little more. there are so many ways to find an older mentor for your daughter, you don't need to import household help to do it.
how sad for your family.
What I'm enjoying
By anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 4:08pm
is reading all these comments from such a "wide variety" of host families and former au pairs that just happen to be written in very similar fashion.
who knew the Au Pair Lobby was watching UHub so closely?
Real people are commenting
By anon
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 10:10pm
Real people are commenting because the host families just found out their child care costs tripled overnight. There is no lobby. Glad you are enjoying people's pain though. Merry christmas.
sure.
By anon
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 11:43pm
okay.
but really what you mean is that "the cost of the service to which you are accustomed" has increased, but not your childcare costs. you can find other alternatives. there are plenty of childcare options that are more affordable if this is such a hardship for au pair employing families.
however, I find that difficult to believe given how a large part of the "arguments" they/you are making here are based on (sometimes suspiciously detailed!) lists outlining allllll the cash they supposedly lay out for optional things like au pair "party in Manhattan" weekends and shopping.
seems like they're pretty comfortable.
but yes, I'm terribly sorry for not recognizing your very first-world problems.
and that still doesn't explain how similar all the posts are nor how so many "different" people ended up here so quickly.
Without action, the end of the Au Pair Program in Massachusetts
By Longtime Au Pai...
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 2:50am
Many years in the Au Pair Program as a host family.
Facts:
Free room and in our family, her own bathroom
Free food and food by request
Ability to use any of the facilities in our house at any time
Free car and gas during time off
In our family, nearly every weekend off, and rarely works the full 45 hours/week.
Up to two paid vacations per year with our family
No need for au pair to cover these costs taken on by MA residents making a living wage:
Rent, or home mortgage, interest and property taxes
Cable/Wifi/Mobile Phone
Utilities
Furnishing a home
Car payment, car insurance or gas
Including agency fees, total costs of $30k+/year
We will not hire a live-in nanny with free rent. We tried this first before joining the Au Pair program and received zero applications with the state unemployment rate at 7%.
There is little to no comparability between a nanny and an au pair. This tragic and thoughtless ruling will destroy the Au Pair program in Massachusetts.
Worst of all, no more new big sisters to my young daughter.
That’s the end of au pairs in MA
By Jonny
Sat, 12/07/2019 - 8:46pm
This creates and unbalanced relationship. I’ve worked with au pairs as an English teacher and seen au pairs in action with my extended family as a child care solution after a tragic death. It was always a give and take relationship.
I was very interested in having my children gain experience with people from another culture. This is financially untenable though. Won’t happen now.
Because it was balanceEd
By cinnamngrl
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 5:08pm
Because it was balanceEd relationship before? You people are so entitled. It’s like you are deaf to anything but your own needs
funny how
By anon
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 11:48pm
for some types, having an au pair is apparently literally the only way they can possibly substantively interact with someone from a different cultural background or who speaks another language.
that says alot about how they view people culturally different from themselves. useful tools to be temporarily employed in the home only to give their children an advantage, but never as neighbors, friends, and fellow Bostonians.
Cultural Exchange
By XA
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 1:30pm
Ok, so I'm American, and have done multiple cultural exchanges. That's what these were intentionally supposed to be. You live with a family, and they welcome you into their homes. They feed you, give you a room to sleep in, and a key to their house. Whatever is in their fridge is yours to eat, or meal they create. In return, you keep your room tidy, you help cleanup, take the garbage out etc. You enjoy learning about the culture, and family.
Furthermore, you get a stipend- usually from the program, not from the family. You go to school, participate in programs that are held, learn the language. AND sometimes you also work, mostly as a intern.
The families usually are not required to pay anything, because they are offering their place to live AND they get a stipend from the program to cover costs such as living expenses etc. The students, on the other hand, are the ones coming to stay with these families and are charged to pay for all the fees (that includes airfare, visa, etc.). Of course, some of that is overhead to the programs that organize everything. No problem.
With this exchange, the problem is that here, your place of employment is also your place where you happen to live. AND the families are the ones providing the stipend, not the government or program. AND the families are put upon to deal with all the costs that go along with hosting someone. But in exchange for that- the idea is, you get someone to help with the kids.
So now families are basically where the student/aupair does a 'internship', which, if it were a normal exchange and you're lucky- you get paid. Most often, not. I have never been paid for an internship- and in fact, the exchange program figured out how to get me into a prestigious journalism program for an internship, for free. Huge bonus because otherwise I'd have to pay to get in.
The idea is EXCHANGE not work. Along the way, this concept has gotten lost. Whether a family is rich or poor, doesn't matter. They are seen as equal, and whatever bonuses they want to give to their exchange students is their own choice, and right. Not all families are created equal.
Now, the MA government wants families to pay even more to host aupairs. I think, it's completely misunderstands the idea of what aupairs are supposed to be.
I know these ideas would ultimately cost money for the government because it would require oversight and interest, but:
How about monitoring the agencies to make sure they are not taking in more money than is essentially necessary for their existence. Also government subsidies, or grants to also keep them accountable. Making them a non-profit vs. for-profit entity.
Classifying the 'work' as an internship, and thus declassifying it as work.
THUS, making sure families are in complete understanding and compliance that the aupair is IN TRAINING, not a professional.
AND, how about recognizing and protecting the rights of families who are allowing an exchange to take place in the first place. And subsidizing the cost of the aupairs as they do in other exchange programs.
ALSO, training aupairs to understand they are here to be interns and are part of an exchange- basically they are ambassadors of their own country and we, as their families are ambassadors of the US. So no matter what, they are here as part of an exchange, and they are to respect the families they are a part of.
Nothing is perfect. In fact, many times, I've been bounced around by different families while doing the exchange because they decided last minute they didn't want to do it. Or some students had terrible families and ended up getting new ones. It happens. But OVERALL, it was an incredible experience for most.
I just can't believe that MA, one of the most diverse and inclusive communities in the entire country is coming up with such a ridiculous ruling. It lacks insight and most importantly, will not be beneficial for MA families.
it's odd to me
By anon
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 9:08pm
how you speak from one paragraph like you were an au pair (only you mention just that you did "cultural exchange", which is not the same thing. I did two exchanges myself, I know the difference), and in other paragraphs you speak quite clearly as an au pair employer.
again, au pair programs are not the only way to get cultural exchange, especially - as you yourself say it - in "MA, one of the most diverse and inclusive communities in the entire country".
If people really valued "cultural exchange" they would step outside for a hot minute and meet their neighbors, and along the way maybe teach their kids important lessons about valuing the people around you who are different - and not just because your parents employ them.
that's clearly not what it's about. for the au pairs, maybe, but not the families. this is about having someone in your home from whom you expect a service, also known as an employee. the state of Massachusetts has ruled accordingly and now the interweb army of angry aupair employer families is all riled up because in this state they don't get special privileges anymore.
they just liked that they got to feel better about having a nanny because they could make like it was all just in the name of cultural exchange.
The practical outcome is not beneficial
By Anon
Wed, 12/11/2019 - 9:03pm
Host families In MA will now operate with their au pairs in a more transactional way.
Hours will be more closely counted
Deductions and chargebacks will be made
For example an au pair working 30 hours per week will make per week
+ 360 gross (@12 x 30)
- ~80 room and board
- ~15 cell phone costs
- ~10 personal car usage (@30 miles per week @35cents per mile)
- ~ any other extras (family vacation costs etc, I am sure Some host families will be more “liberal” than others on this dimension)
- to be generous let’s say post chargebacks the aupair is netting 260
So the government benefits as the au pair previously would have paid taxes on 200 and now pays on 360
Federal tax at a 10percent rate 36dollars vs 20 previously
MA tax at 5% 18 dollars vs 10 dollars
The au pair pays more in tax
=25dollars Net increase in tax paid by the au pair
Resulting in realized take home of 225 vs 200 (under the old law) per week
The host family pays a slightly more per week ~260
Thankfully it did not cost taxpayers millions of dollars to reach such a genius outcome. Well done Massachusetts!
Some of the deductions listed
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 12/30/2019 - 11:21am
Some of the deductions listed are not legal. And I hope you are not filing your own taxes, cause wow your math is not good.
So 30 hours per week at state minimum wage is 19890-12200(standard deduction)= 7690 taxable income at rate of 10% is 769 per year or 14.76 per week. The previous "stipend" adds up to less than standard deduction.
Speaking of taxes, Did you figure in the $6000 child care tax credit when listing all the money paid for the Au Pair program?
Pages
Add comment